Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: July 9, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: July 9, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Intel Corporation1 (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,154,356 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’356 patent”). Qualcomm
`Incorporated (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as
`to all the challenged claims of the ’356 patent and all the grounds presented.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify a district court case in the Southern District of
`California in which Patent Owner asserted the ’356 patent against Apple:
`Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Incorporated, No. 3:17-cv-02398
`(S.D. Cal.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. The parties also identify an International
`Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation in which Patent Owner has asserted
`the ’356 patent against Apple. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. In addition, the parties
`identify four other petitions for inter partes review involving the ’356 patent
`that Petitioner has filed. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. According to Petitioner’s
`Updated Mandatory Notices in a related inter partes review proceeding, the
`district court case has been dismissed and the parties have moved to
`
`
`1 Intel Corporation identifies itself and Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as real parties
`in interest. Paper 3, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`terminate the ITC investigation. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`Case IPR2019-00128, slip op. at 1 (PTAB May 24, 2019) (Paper 8).
`
`
`B. The ’356 Patent
`The ’356 patent describes low noise amplifiers. Ex. 1001, 1:15–16.
`Figure 6A, which is reproduced below, illustrates an example of a low noise
`amplifier according to the ’356 patent. Id. at 1:54–55.
`
`
`In particular, Figure 6A shows carrier aggregation low noise amplifier 640a,
`which has two amplifier stages 650a and 650b. Id. at 7:44–49. Amplifier
`stage 650a includes source degeneration inductor 652a, gain transistor 654a,
`cascode transistor 656a, and switch 658a. Id. at 7:58–8:4. Similarly,
`amplifier stage 650b includes source degeneration inductor 652b, gain
`transistor 654b, cascode transistor 656b, and switch 658b. Id. at 8:4–9.
`Both amplifier stages 650a and 650b are coupled to common input matching
`circuit 632 and to respective load circuits 690a and 690b. Id. at 7:47–49.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`In operation, matching circuit 632 receives receiver input signal RXin,
`performs input matching for low noise amplifier 640a, and provides input
`RF signal RFin to low noise amplifier 640a. Id. at 7:49–52. Input RF
`signal RFin may include transmissions on one set of carriers or
`transmissions on two sets of carriers in the same band, with each set
`including one or more carriers. Id. at 7:55–57, 8:16–18, 8:30–32. An RF
`signal with transmissions on multiple sets of carriers is called a carrier
`aggregated RF signal. Id. at 8:16–18.
`Low noise amplifier 640a operates in either a non-carrier aggregation
`(non-CA) mode or a carrier aggregation (CA) mode, depending on the type
`of input RF signal it receives. Id. at 8:24–32, 8:36–44. In the non-CA
`mode, low noise amplifier 640a receives transmissions on one set of carriers
`and provides one output RF signal to one load circuit. Id. at 8:30–32. Only
`one amplifier stage is enabled, while the other amplifier stage is disabled.
`Id. at 8:46–47. To illustrate, Figure 6C is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`Figure 6C shows low noise amplifier 640a operating in the non-CA mode.
`Id. at 8:45–46. Amplifier stage 650a is enabled by connecting the gate of
`cascode transistor 656a to the Vcasc voltage via switch 658a, and amplifier
`stage 650b is disabled by shorting the gate of cascode transistor 656b to
`circuit ground via switch 658b. Id. at 8:47–52. Amplifier stage 650a
`amplifies the input RF signal and provides an output RF signal to load
`circuit 690a. Id. at 8:52–54.
`In the CA mode, low noise amplifier 640a receives transmissions on
`two sets of carriers and provides two output RF signals to two load circuits,
`one output RF signal for each set of carriers. Id. at 8:32–35. Both amplifier
`stages are enabled. Id. at 8:37–38. To illustrate, Figure 6B is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 6B shows low noise amplifier 640a operating in the CA mode. Id. at
`8:36–37. Amplifier stages 650a and 650b are enabled by connecting the
`gate of cascode transistor 656a to the Vcasc voltage via switch 658a and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`coupling the gate of cascode transistor 656b to the Vcasc voltage via
`switch 658b. Id. at 8:37–40. The carrier aggregated RF signal splits at the
`input of low noise amplifier 640a, and then amplifier stages 650a and 650b
`amplify the carrier aggregated RF signal and provide two output RF signals
`to two separate downconverters in load circuits 690a and 690b. Id. at 8:21–
`28. Specifically, amplifier stage 650a amplifies the input RF signal and
`provides the first output RF signal to load circuit 690a. Id. at 8:41–42.
`Similarly, amplifier stage 650b amplifies the input RF signal and provides
`the second output RF signal to load circuit 690b. Id. at 8:42–44.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the
`’356 patent. Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
`claims under challenge:
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`a first amplifier stage configured to be independently enabled
`or disabled, the first amplifier stage further configured to
`receive and amplify an input radio frequency (RF) signal
`and provide a first output RF signal to a first load circuit
`when the first amplifier stage is enabled, the input RF
`signal
`employing
`carrier
`aggregation
`comprising
`transmissions sent on multiple carriers at different
`frequencies to a wireless device, the first output RF signal
`including at least a first carrier of the multiple carriers; and
`a second amplifier stage configured to be independently
`enabled or disabled, the second amplifier stage further
`configured to receive and amplify the input RF signal and
`provide a second output RF signal to a second load circuit
`when the second amplifier stage is enabled, the second
`output RF signal including at least a second carrier of the
`multiple carriers different than the first carrier.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1, 11, 17, and 18
`7 and 8
`10
`1, 11, 17, and 18
`7 and 8
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the
`’356 patent on the following grounds. Pet. 44–82.
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Uehara2
`§ 102
`Uehara and Perumana3
`§ 103
`Uehara and Youssef4
`§ 103
`Uehara and the Feasibility Study5
`§ 103
`Uehara, the Feasibility Study, and
`§ 103
`Perumana
`Uehara, the Feasibility Study, and
`Youssef
`In support of its arguments, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Patrick Fay,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1002). See id.
`
`
`§ 103
`
`10
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`A. Discretion Under § 314(a): Multiple Petitions
`Patent Owner requests that we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review in light of Petitioner’s
`multiple filings. Prelim. Resp. 16–19; see Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee,
`
`
`2 U.S. Publ’n No. 2011/0217945 A1 (published Sept. 8, 2011) (Ex. 1003).
`3 Bevin G. Perumana et al., Resistive-Feedback CMOS Low-Noise
`Amplifiers for Multiband Applications, 56 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
`MICROWAVE THEORY & TECHNIQUES 1218 (2008) (Ex. 1008).
`4 Ahmed Youssef et al., Digitally-Controlled RF Passive Attenuator in
`65 nm CMOS for Mobile TV Tuner ICs, 2010 IEEE INT’L SYMP. ON CIRCUITS
`& SYS. 1999 (Ex. 1009).
`5 3d Generation P’Ship Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access
`Network; Feasibility Study for Further Advancements for E-UTRA (LTE-
`Advanced) (Release 9) (3GPP TR 36.912 V9.1.0) (Dec. 2009) (Ex. 1004,
`“the Feasibility Study”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is
`a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); Harmonic Inc. v.
`Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is
`permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the
`reasons explained below, we do not exercise our discretion to deny
`institution.
`Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner challenges overlapping claims
`with redundant references and arguments across three petitions.” Prelim.
`Resp. 16. As support, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner relies primarily
`on Uehara in the instant Petition, on Lee6 in a second petition, and on a
`combination of Jeon7 and Xiong8 in a third petition. Id. at 16–17. Patent
`Owner further asserts that, “in separate petitions, Petitioner alleges that
`Uehara and Lee each anticipate claims 1, 11, 17, and 18” but “has provided
`no indication that Uehara is somehow more relevant or provides different
`disclosure than the primary references in the other petitions.” Id. at 18.
`According to Patent Owner, “[t]he fact that both references are relied upon
`to anticipate the claims evidences that the anticipatory grounds present
`substantially the same argument applied in the same way – that Uehara and
`Lee each allegedly teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 11, 17, and 18.”
`Id. (citing Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00628,
`slip op. at 9 (PTAB Oct. 2014) (Paper 21)). In addition, Patent Owner
`asserts that “the petitions all rely on the Feasibility Study as a back-up to the
`
`
`6 U.S. Publ’n No. 2012/0056681 A1 (published Mar. 8, 2012).
`7 Sanggeun Jeon et al., A Scalable 6-to-18 GHz Concurrent Dual-Band
`Quad-Beam Phased-Array Receiver in CMOS, 43 IEEE J. SOLID-STATE
`CIRCUITS 2660 (Dec. 2008).
`8 U.S. Publ’n No. 2010/0237947 A1 (published Sept. 23, 2010).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`primary references,” and that the combinations of the Feasibility Study and
`those references “are cumulative to one another.” Id. at 19. As to the
`remaining grounds across the petitions, Patent Owner characterizes them as
`“involv[ing] insignificant secondary references that are relied on for the
`same duplicative arguments already made.” Id. (citing TomTom, Inc. v.
`Blackbird Tech, LLC, Case IPR2017-02025, slip op. at 7 (PTAB Mar. 12,
`2018) (Paper 7)).
`We disagree with Patent Owner. In Conopco, a prior Board decision
`that Patent Owner cites, the panel “recognize[d] that the prior art disclosures
`relied upon in the two petitions are not identical,” but it nevertheless was
`persuaded that “both petitions appl[ied] the prior art references to support
`substantially the same arguments” based on “the information presented.”
`Conopco, slip op. at 8–9. In the instant case, however, the limited evidence
`available on this record does not show that the prior art disclosures support
`substantially the same arguments. Patent Owner asserts that Uehara and Lee
`“are relied upon to anticipate the claims” and that various secondary
`references are “insignificant” and relied on for “duplicative arguments.”
`Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner additionally asserts that combinations based
`on the Feasibility Study are “cumulative to one another.” Id. at 19.
`Notwithstanding, Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner relies on
`Uehara as an anticipatory reference for claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 of the
`’356 patent in the instant Petition, while relying on Lee as an anticipatory
`reference for claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 18 in a second petition. See id. at
`16–17. The instant Petition additionally challenges claims 7 and 8 based on
`a combination of Uehara and Perumana. See id. at 16. That Petitioner does
`not apply Uehara and Lee as anticipatory references to the same set of
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`claims implies that the disclosures in those references are different and do
`not necessarily support substantially the same arguments. The situation here
`is not like the one in TomTom, another prior Board decision that Patent
`Owner cites, where the petitioner relied on different prior art disclosures
`across two petitions for the same set of claims. See TomTom, slip op. at 14–
`15.
`
`Patent Owner also acknowledges that Petitioner relies on a
`combination of Jeon and Xiong for claims 1, 17, and 18 in a third petition.
`See Prelim. Resp. 17. The third petition does not challenge claim 11 at all.
`Id. As with Uehara and Lee, Petitioner applies Uehara and the combination
`of Jeon and Xiong to different sets of claims. In addition, neither Jeon nor
`Xiong is applied as an anticipatory reference. These facts imply that the
`disclosures in Uehara, Jeon, and Xiong are different and do not necessarily
`support substantially the same arguments.
`Accordingly, on this record, we find no persuasive reason to deny
`institution based on Petitioner’s multiple filings.
`
`B. Discretion Under § 325(d): Prior Art Previously Considered
`Patent Owner further requests that we exercise our discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution because (1) all six grounds presented
`in the Petition rely on a reference considered during prosecution, namely,
`Uehara; (2) another reference on which the Petition relies, the Feasibility
`Study, is cumulative to a disclosure considered during prosecution; and
`(3) the remaining asserted references, Perumana and Youssef, are
`insignificant and redundant in view of disclosures presented to the Patent
`Office during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 9–16; see Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`2140; Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1367. For the reasons explained below, we do
`not exercise our discretion to deny institution.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), we have discretion to deny a petition when
`the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were presented
`previously in another proceeding before the Office. Although a petitioner
`may have sound reasons for raising art or arguments similar to those
`previously considered by the Office, the Board weighs petitioners’ desires to
`be heard against the interests of patent owners who seek to avoid
`harassment. See H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011) (explaining that
`post-grant review proceedings “are not to be used as tools for harassment or
`a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and
`administrative attacks on the validity of a patent,” and that “[d]oing so
`would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost
`effective alternatives to litigation”).
`In the instant proceeding, Petitioner relies on Uehara for teaching all
`the recited elements of claims 1, 11, 17, and 18. Pet. 44–67. Under an
`alternative theory, Petitioner additionally relies on the Feasibility Study for
`its teaching of an input radio frequency signal employing carrier
`aggregation. Id. at 77–80. Petitioner further relies on Perumana for teaching
`the recited elements of claims 7 and 8, and on Youssef for teaching the
`recited elements of claim 10. Id. at 68–76.
`Patent Owner contends that the prosecution history for the ’356 patent
`indicates that the Examiner considered Uehara. Prelim. Resp. 9–11. As
`support, Patent Owner points out that Uehara is listed on the face of the
`’356 patent. Id. at 10; see Ex. 1001, at [56]. Patent Owner also directs us to
`an information disclosure statement that lists Uehara as a reference and
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`includes the Examiner’s signature. Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004); see
`also Ex. 2004, 9.9 The bottom of each page of the signed information
`disclosure statement reads, “ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT
`WHERE LINED THROUGH. /KCT/.” See Ex. 2004. Uehara is not lined
`through. See id. at 9. According to Patent Owner, “[t]hat is enough to show
`that the Office previously considered Uehara for purposes of Section
`325(d).” Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V., Case IPR2018-00626, slip op. at 21 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2018)
`(Paper 7);10 Clim-A-Tech Ind., Inc. v. William A. Ebert, IPR2017-01863, slip
`op. at 18–19 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2018) (Paper 13)).
`In addition, Patent Owner directs us to where another signed
`information disclosure statement lists an international search report and
`written opinion for a related international application, and contends that
`these listed papers “provide[] a detailed description of how Uehara allegedly
`reads on the claims.” Id. at 10–11 (citing Ex. 2005; Ex. 2006); see also
`Ex. 2005, 5 (listing of the search report and written opinion); Ex. 2006, 7
`(written opinion providing “[r]easoned statement with regard to novelty”);
`compare Ex. 2005, 1 (identifying attorney docket number for ’356 patent
`application), with Ex. 2006, 1 (identifying same docket number for
`international application). The search report designates Uehara as an “X”
`
`
`9 For Exhibit 2004, our citations correspond to Patent Owner’s numbering of
`pages.
`10 Patent Owner cites R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`Case IPR2017-00626, slip op. at 12 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2018) (Paper 7), but
`the language relied on appears at R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V., Case IPR2018-00626, slip op. at 21 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2018)
`(Paper 7).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`reference, meaning that Uehara is “of particular relevance” and “the claimed
`invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an
`inventive step when the document is taken alone.” Ex. 2006, 3.
`Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that it is
`appropriate to exercise our discretion to deny institution. As Patent Owner
`acknowledges, the Examiner did not rely on Uehara to reject claims in the
`application for the ’356 patent. Prelim. Resp. 13 (“[T]he Office did not
`issue a rejection over Uehara.”). The fact that Uehara was not the basis of
`rejection weighs strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun
`Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, slip op. at 17 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017)
`(Paper 8) (informative) (considering six nonexclusive factors in evaluating
`whether to exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), including “the
`extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including
`whether the prior art was the basis for rejection”); Kayak Software Corp. v.
`Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., Case CBM2016-00075, slip op. at 11 (PTAB
`Dec. 15, 2016) (Paper 16) (informative) (“There could be situations where,
`for example, the prosecution is not as exhaustive, where there are clear
`errors in the original prosecution, or where the prior art at issue was only
`cursorily considered that can weigh against exercising the discretion.”
`(emphasis added)).
`Although the international search report and written opinion identify
`Uehara as an “X” reference and provide a “[r]easoned statement with regard
`to novelty,” the papers by themselves do not demonstrate the extent to which
`the Examiner considered the reference. Nor do the papers demonstrate that
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`the Examiner considered the various combinations of Uehara, the Feasibility
`Study, Perumana, and Youssef as relied on in the Petition.
`Moreover, we note that the Examiner singled out the claim limitations
`“a first amplifier stage configured to be independently enabled or disabled”
`and “a second amplifier stage configured to be independently enabled or
`disabled” as “reasons for allowance” for the ’356 patent. Ex. 1022, 4–5.
`The “[r]easoned statement with regard to novelty” in the written opinion for
`the related international application does not address these limitations. See
`Ex. 2006, 7.
`Lastly, neither of the prior Board decisions cited by Patent Owner (see
`Prelim. Resp. 10) presents a situation where the panel denied institution
`based solely on the fact that the asserted prior art was listed in an
`information disclosure statement. For instance, the panel in R.J. Reynolds
`additionally denied institution because it was not persuaded that the
`petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the sole
`ground presented in the petition. See R.J. Reynolds, slip op. at 18, 21
`(“After due consideration of the record before [us] and for the foregoing
`reasons, we deny the Petition.”). Similarly, the panel in Clim-A-Tech
`additionally denied institution because it was not persuaded that the
`petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds
`presented in the petition. Clim-A-Tech, slip op. at 18, 19 (“[T]he Board
`exercises its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as an additional basis to
`decline to institute.”), 22, 25–26, 30–31. By contrast, for the reasons
`explained below, we are persuaded that Petitioner in this proceeding has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on the asserted
`grounds presented in the Petition. See infra Sections III.D–III.G.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`In view of the foregoing, we decline to exercise our discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution. Because Uehara is relied on for all
`six grounds presented in the Petition, we need not address whether the other
`asserted references are cumulative to prior art previously considered by the
`Office.
`
`
`C. Claim Interpretation
`The claim construction standard applicable to this inter partes review
`proceeding is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018);11 Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at
`2144–46 (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard). Under this standard, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioner provides a proposed interpretation of the claim term “carrier
`aggregation.” Pet. 30–34. Patent Owner responds that “no terms must be
`construed at this stage of the proceeding” and that “the Board should deny
`institution under any claim construction it adopts.” Prelim. Resp. 8. For
`
`
`11 The revised claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter
`partes review proceedings as set forth in the final rule published October 11,
`2018, does not apply to this proceeding because the new “rule is effective on
`November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR and CBM petitions filed on
`or after the effective date.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R.
`pt. 42). This Petition was filed on November 8, 2018.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim term requires express
`interpretation at this time to resolve any controversy in this proceeding.
`
`
`D. Anticipation by Uehara
`Petitioner asserts that Uehara anticipates claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 of
`the ’356 patent. Pet. 44–67. For the reasons explained below, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this asserted ground.
`
`
`1. Uehara
`Uehara describes dual carrier amplifier circuits. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2, 4–7.
`Figure 3, which is reproduced below, illustrates an example of an amplifier
`circuit according to Uehara. Id. ¶ 47.
`
`
`Specifically, Figure 3 shows a low noise amplifier (LNA) that includes
`antenna 350, filter 351, matching network 352, two transconductance
`stages 301 and 302, current combiner circuit 303, as well as mixers 304 and
`305. Id. In operation, antenna 350 receives a radio frequency (RF) signal
`with two channels encoded around two different carrier frequencies. Id.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`The dual carrier signal is amplified by transconductance stages 301 and 302
`and coupled to mixers 304 and 305 on two different output paths 306
`(“OUT1”) and 307 (“OUT2”) by current combiner circuit 303. Id.
`Figure 2A is reproduced below to help explain how transconductance
`stages 301 and 302 and current combiner circuit 303 operate. Id. ¶ 34
`(describing an LNA shown in Figure 2A); see also id. ¶ 47 (stating that the
`LNA shown in Figure 3 “includes two transconductance stages 301 and 302
`and a current combiner circuit 303 that operate as described above”).
`
`
`
`Figure 2A shows amplifier circuit 200A, which is an LNA including input
`transistors 201–204 that act as parallel transconductance stages. Id. ¶ 34.
`Transistors 201 and 202 make up a first transconductance stage, receiving a
`differential signal with first and second components VN+ and VN– and then
`converting the components to corresponding currents for output. Id.
`Transistors 203 and 204 make up a second transconductance stage, similarly
`receiving first and second components VN+ and VN– and then converting
`the components to corresponding currents for output. Id. ¶ 35.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`The currents are received by current combiner circuit 270A, which is
`implemented with selectively enabled cascode transistors 205–212 to
`selectively couple currents from the transconductance stage transistors to
`either or both of output paths OUT1 and OUT2. Id. ¶ 36. For example, with
`respect to the first transconductance stage, cascode transistors 205 and 207
`may be turned on to couple current from transistors 201 and 202 to output
`path OUT1, or they may be turned off to decouple the current from output
`path OUT1. Id. Likewise, cascode transistors 206 and 208 may be
`selectively turned on or off to couple the current from transistors 201 and
`202 to output path OUT2 or to decouple the current from transistors 201 and
`202 from output path OUT2. Id. Similarly, with respect to the second
`transconductance stage, cascode transistors 209–212 may be turned on or off
`to couple or decouple current from transistors 203 and 204 with output
`paths OUT1 and OUT2. Id. ¶ 38.
`
`
`2. Analysis
`Independent claim 1 recites “a first amplifier stage configured to be
`independently enabled or disabled” and “configured to receive and amplify
`an input radio frequency (RF) signal and provide a first output RF signal to a
`first load circuit when the first amplifier stage is enabled.” For this
`limitation, Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 3 of Uehara,
`which is reproduced below. Pet. 47.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 of Uehara, as annotated by Petitioner, shows a low noise amplifier
`that includes antenna 350, transconductance stages 301 and 302, current
`combiner circuit 303, and mixers 304 and 305. Ex. 1003 ¶ 47. Petitioner
`also provides an annotated version of Figure 2A of Uehara, which is
`reproduced below. Pet. 49.
`
`Figure 2A of Uehara, as annotated by Petitioner, shows amplifier
`circuit 200A, which is a low noise amplifier that includes input
`transistors 201–204 and cascode transistors 205–212. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34, 36.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`Petitioner contends that “Figure 2A is a detailed diagram of the
`[transconductance] stages and current combiner circuit of Figure 3.” Pet. 47.
`As support, Petitioner points us to Uehara’s teaching that Figure 3 illustrates
`“a low noise amplifier (LNA) includ[ing] two transconductance stages 301
`and 302 and a current combiner circuit 303 that operate as described above,”
`where Uehara describes Figure 2A prior to discussing Figure 3. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 47); accord id. at 37.
`Petitioner identifies Uehara’s transconductance stage 301 together
`with current combiner circuit 303 as a “first amplifier stage.” Id. at 48.
`According to Petitioner, transconductance stage 301 (highlighted in dark
`orange in Figure 3) corresponds to input transistors 201 and 202 (highlighted
`in dark orange in Figure 2A), while current combiner circuit 303 (whose
`upper portion is highlighted in light orange in Figure 3) corresponds to
`cascode transistors 205 and 207 (highlighted in light orange in Figure 2A).
`Pet. 45, 47–48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36, 47). Petitioner further identifies
`Uehara’s mixer 304 (highlighted in dark blue in Figure 3) as a “first load
`circuit.” Id. at 48.
`In addition, Petitioner directs us to Uehara’s teaching that “[c]ascode
`transistors 205 and 207 may be selectively turned on or off . . . thereby
`coupling or decoupling current from transistors 201 and 202 from output
`path OUT1.” Id. at 50 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 36); accord id. at 46. According
`to Petitioner, “when current flows through the cascode and transconductance
`transistors, the amplifier stage is enabled.” Pet. 46.
`Petitioner also directs us to where Uehara teaches that antenna 350 in
`Figure 3 receives an RF signal that is amplified by transconductance
`stage 301 (i.e., “first amplifier stage”) and then provided to mixer 304 (i.e.,
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`“first load circuit”) on output path OUT1. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 47). Petitioner identifies Uehara’s RF signal as an “input radio frequency
`(RF) signal,” and contends that Uehara’s RF signal (highlighted in light blue
`in Figure 3) corresponds to Uehara’s differential signal with first and second
`components VN+ and VN– (highlighted in light blue in Figure 2). Id. at 47–
`49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34, 47). Petitioner relies on Uehara’s teaching that
`“[i]n one embodiment, the signal is a differential RF voltage signal.” Id. at
`49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner additionally identifies the signal
`(highlighted in purple in Figures 2A and 3) provided to mixer 304 on output
`path OUT1 as a “first output RF signal.” Id. at 48–49; see also id. at 49
`(“Figure 3 shows that output path OUT1 includes mixer 304. . . . Thus, [in
`Figure 2] transistors 201 and 202 work together with transistors 205 and 207
`. . . to route the amplified first output RF signal along output path OUT1 to
`the first load circuit (e.g., mixer 304).”).
`Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`sufficiently shown for purposes of this Decision that Uehara discloses the
`recited “first amplifier stage.”
`Claim 1 further recites that “the input RF signal employ[s] carrier
`aggregation comprising transmissions sent on multiple carriers at different
`frequencies to a wireless device.” Regarding this limitation, Petitioner
`directs us to where Uehara teaches using its low noise amplifier in a wireless
`receiver. Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 47). Petitioner also directs us to
`where Uehara teaches that its low noise amplifier may process an RF signal
`that “include[s] two channels encoded around two different carrier
`frequencies (i.e., dual carriers).” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). For dual
`carrier signals, Uehara further teaches coupling currents from both
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`transconductance stages to the two output paths. Ex. 1003 ¶ 50 (cited by
`Pet. 51); see also id. ¶ 47 (explaining that “[m]ixer 304 may receive the dual
`carrier signal and a local oscillator signal having a frequency equal to the
`one of the two carriers in the RF signal” and “mixer 305 may receive t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
